TOMATOMETER

Audience Score

Judgment at Nuremberg Ratings & Reviews Explanation

Judgment at Nuremberg
Photos

Movie Info

After the end of World War II, the world gradually became aware of the full extent of the war crimes perpetrated by the Third Reich. In 1948, a series of trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany, by an international tribunal, headed by American legal and military officials, with the intent of bringing to justice those guilty of crimes against humanity. However, by that time most of the major figures of the Nazi regime were either dead or long missing, and in the resulting legal proceedings American judges often found themselves confronting the question of how much responsibility someone held who had "just followed orders." Judgment at Nuremberg is a dramatized version of the proceedings at one of these trials, in which Judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy) is overseeing the trials of four German judges -- most notably Dr. Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster) and Emil Hahn (Werner Klemperer) -- accused of knowingly sentencing innocent men to death in collusion with the Nazis. Representing the defense is attorney Hans Rolfe (Maximilian Schell), while prosecuting the accused is U.S. Col. Tad Lawson (Richard Widmark). As the trial goes on, both the visiting Americans and their reluctant German hosts often find themselves facing the legacy of the war, and how both of their nations have been irrevocably changed by it. Judgment at Nuremberg also features notable supporting performances by Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland, and Montgomery Clift. Originally written and produced as a play for television, the screen version of Judgment at Nuremberg was nominated for 11 Academy Awards, with Maximilian Schell and Abby Mann taking home Oscars for (respectively) Best Actor and Best Adapted Screenplay. ~ Mark Deming, Rovi

The screenplay, by Abby Mann, must be given A for effort. It concentrates on the moral-historical question of the responsibility of the German people for the Nazi horrors... Without Mr. Mann's script, it would have been just another courtroom drama.

A tpical Stanley Kramer's film: Serious (even pompous) and humanist, but essentially middlebrow, courtroom drama that while well-acted is too verbose and fearful of taking sides in the controversy over who's to blame for the Nazi atrocities.

Audience Reviews for Judgment at Nuremberg

Sep 11, 2017

Outstanding film. Star-studded with several fantastic performances. Highly emotional given the subject matter, but presented in a very intelligent, balanced way. I was struck at once by that, and by how well director Stanley Kramer gives us both sides of the argument - and avoids simply paying lip service to the defense of the German judges on trial. Maximilian Schell is brilliant as the defense attorney, well worthy of his Oscar, and is forceful and compelling in his arguments. There are also so many brilliant scenes. Spencer Tracy walking in the empty arena where the Nazi rallies were held, with Kramer focusing on the dais from which Hitler spoke. The testimony of Montgomery Clift and Judy Garland, both of whom are outstanding and should have gotten Oscars. Burt Lancaster in the role of one of the German judges, the one tortured by his complicity, knowing he and others are guilty. The devastating real film clips from the concentration camps, which are still spine tingling despite all we 'know' or have been exposed to. Marlene Dietrich as the German general's wife, haunted but expressing the German viewpoint, one time while people are singing over drinks. Her night stroll with Tracy, as she explains the words to one song, is touching. It just seemed like there was just one powerhouse scene after another, and the film did not seem long at all at three hours. Heck, you've even got Werner Klemperer and William Shatner before they would become Colonel Klink and Captain Kirk! In this film, the acting, the script, and the direction are all brilliant, and in harmony with one another.
As for the trial itself, the defense argument was along these lines: they were judges (and therefore interpreters), not makers of law. They didn't know about the atrocities in the concentration camps. At least one of them saved or helped many by staying in their roles and doing the best they could under the heavy hand of the Third Reich. They were patriots, saw improvement in the country when Hitler took power, but did not know how far he would go. If you were going to convict these judges, you would have to convict many more Germans (and where would it stop?). The Americans themselves practiced Eugenics and killed thousands and thousands of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The one small weakness I found was that the defense never makes the simple argument that these judges were forced to do what they did, just as countless others in Germany were, and would have been imprisoned or killed themselves had they not complied. Anyone who's lived under a totalitarian regime may understand, or at least empathize.
I'm not saying I bought into these arguments or that one should be an apologist to Nazis, but the fact that the film presented such a strong defense was thought provoking. How fantastic is it that Spencer Tracy plays his character the way he does - simply pursuing the facts, and in a quiet, thoughtful way. It's the best of humanity. How heartbreaking is Burt Lancaster's character, admitting they knew, admitting their guilt, knowing that what happened was horrible and that they were wrong, and yet seeking Tracy's understanding in that scene in the jail cell at the end - intellectual to intellectual - and being rebuked. Even a single life taken unjustly was wrong. Had the Axis won the war, I don't know which Americans would have been on trial for war crimes for the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, or for dropping the atomic bombs, but the film makes one think, even for a war when things were seemingly as black and white as they could ever be. The particulars of this trial were fictionalized, but it's representative of what really occurred, and it transports you into events 70 years ago which seem so unreal today - and yet are so vitally important to understand, and remember.

Kramer's films can be a bit overlong and a bit too obsessed with their own importance. While "Judgment at Nuremberg" suffers from both, neither issue eclipses the film's stronger elements (namely most of the performances, and the writing).

Leaders of the Third Reich are put on trial at Nuremberg with a thoughtful American judge at the helm.
The themes in the film are remarkably varied and explored with an impressive degree of depth. How do we judge a people, a society? Can we separate individuals from the society to which they belong? What is the proper response to travesty? Does following orders exonerate those who carry out crimes? This is a film about deep philosophical matters, and it both poses answers and puts the onus on its audience.
The natural dignity of Spencer Tracy has never been put to better use, and his performance is matched by the soulful Burt Lancaster and the fiery Maximilian Schell.
Overall, usually important films are tedious, but this one is too important to miss.

Judgment at Nuremberg Quotes

Gen. Merrin:

To Lawson:
Look, I'm not your commanding officer.
I can't influence your decision, and I don't want to.
But I want to give this to you, and I want to give it to you straight.
We need the help of the German people.
And you don't get the help of the German people...by sentencing their leaders to stiff prison sentences.
The thing to do is survive, isn't it?
Survive as best we can, but survive.

Hans Rolfe:

Why did we succeed, Your Honor?
What about the rest of the world?
Did it not know the intentions of the Third Reich?
Did it not hear the words of Hitler's broadcasts all over the world?
Did it not read his intentions in Mein Kampf...published in every corner of the world?
Where is the responsibility of the Soviet Union...who signed in the pact with Hitler...enabled him to make war?
Are we now to find Russia guilty?
Where is the responsibility of the Vatican...who signed in the concordat with Hitler...giving him his first tremendous prestige?
Are we now to find the Vatican guilty?
Where is the responsibility of the world leader Winston Churchill...who said in an open letter to the London Times in :
"Were England to suffer a national disaster, I should pray to God...to send a man of the strength of mind and will of an Adolf Hitler."
Are we now to find Winston Churchill guilty?
Where is the responsibility of those American industrialists...who helped Hitler to rebuild his armaments, and profited by that rebuilding?
Are we now to find the American industrialists guilty?
No, Your Honor.
Germany alone is not guilty.
The whole world is as responsible for Hitler as Germany.

Hans Rolfe:

Why did we succeed, Your Honor?
What about the rest of the world?
Did it not know the intentions of the Third Reich?
Did it not hear the words of Hitler's broadcasts all over the world?
Did it not read his intentions in Mein Kampf...published in every corner of the world?
Where is the responsibility of the Soviet Union...who signed in the pact with Hitler...enabled him to make war?
Are we now to find Russia guilty?
Where is the responsibility of the Vatican...who signed in the concordat with Hitler...giving him his first tremendous prestige?
Are we now to find the Vatican guilty?
Where is the responsibility of the world leader Winston Churchill...who said in an open letter to the London Times in :
'Were England to suffer a national disaster, I should pray to God...to send a man of the strength of mind and will of an Adolf Hitler.'
Are we now to find Winston Churchill guilty?
Where is the responsibility of those American industrialists...who helped Hitler to rebuild his armaments, and profited by that rebuilding?
Are we now to find the American industrialists guilty?
No, Your Honor.
Germany alone is not guilty.
The whole world is as responsible for Hitler as Germany.

Col. Tad Lawson:

"The hare was shot by the hunter in the field."
It's really quite simple.

Col. Tad Lawson:

'The hare was shot by the hunter in the field.'
It's really quite simple.